Assessing Online Doctoral Student Research Competencies

Authors

  • John C. Gillham University of Findlay
  • Nicole V. Schilling University of Findlay

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2023.296

Keywords:

EdD student development, Scholar-Practitioner Research Development Scale (SPRDS), research competencies, Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate online education doctoral students’ perceptions of their research competencies. The researchers utilized the Scholar-Practitioner Research Development Scale (Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2018) which consisted of 24 Likert-based items to assess research competency in five areas: attitude toward or value of research, critical evaluation and application of research, research knowledge, research skills, and research dissemination. For each of the five research competencies students reported their competency at 4.0 or above (on a scale of 1- 5) each year, with students most strongly agreeing with statements related to the value of research, evaluation and application skills, and research knowledge. This study illuminates the development of research competencies in online doctoral students. Recommendations include using the Scholar-Practitioner Research Scale to assess program effectiveness, track program improvements, and identify gaps in the curriculum.

Author Biographies

John C. Gillham, University of Findlay

Associate Professor, College of Education

Nicole V. Schilling, University of Findlay

Associate Professors, College of Education.

References

Andrews, R., & Grogan, M. (2005). Form should follow function: Removing the Ed.D. dissertation from the Ph.D. straight jacket. UCEA Review 46(2), 10–12.

Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the education leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 704–739.

Baker, V. L., & Pifer, M. J. (2014). Preparing for practice: Parallel processes of identity development in stage 3 of doctoral education. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, 137–154. https://doi.org/10.28945/2041

Bouck, G. M. (2011). Scholar–practitioner identity, A liminal perspective. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 5(2), 201–210.

Burrington, D., Madison, R. D., & Schmitt, A. (2020). Dissertation committee chairs’ current practices to support doctoral students in an online doctoral program. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 23(3), 1–13.

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (2020). 2020 CPED Member Report. https://cped.memberclicks.net/assets/2020%20Member%20Report.pdf

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (2021). The CPED Framework. CPEDinitiative.org. https://www.cpedinitiative.org/the-framework

Caskey, M., Stevens, D., & Yeo, M. (2020). Examining doctoral student development of a researcher identity: Using the draw a researcher test. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2020.92

Choi, Y. H., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., & Ermis, G. L. (2019, April 8). Identity development in doctoral education: Literature reviews and implications [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, CA.

Golde, C. M. (2013). Afterward: Mapping the transformation of the Ed.D student. In J. A. Perry & D. L. Carlson’s (Eds.), In their own words, A journey to the stewardship of the practice in education (pp. 139-148). Information Age.

Hochbein, C., & Perry, J. A. (2013). The role of research in the professional doctorate. Planning and Changing 44(3/4), 181–195.

Jenlink, P. M. (2014). The cultural ecology of scholar-practitioner leaders: An ethnographic study of leadership. Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 1(1), 1–24.

Labaree, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004013

Lasater, K., Bengston, E., & Murphy-Lee, M. (2016). An online CPED educational leadership program, Student perspectives on its value and influence on professional practice. Impacting Education, Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2016.8

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Columbia University Teachers’ College.

Malen, B., & Prestine, N. (2005). The case for revitalizing the dissertation. Review 46(2), 7–9.

Murakami-Ramalho, E., Militello, M., & Piert, J. (2013). A view from within: How doctoral students in educational administration develop research knowledge and identity. Studies in Higher Education, 38(2), 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.578738

Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2005). Developing professionally anchored dissertations. School Leadership Review, 1(1), 33–57.

National Center for Education Statistics (2020). Number and percentage of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation, location of student, level of enrollment, and control and level of institution: Fall 2018 and fall 2019. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_311.15.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2021). Postbaccalaureate enrollment. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2021/chb_508c.pdf

Perry, J. A. (2015). The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(3), 56–61.

Perry, J. A., Zambo, D., & Wunder, S. (2015). Understanding how schools of education have redesigned the doctorate of education. Journal of School Public Relations 36(1), 58–85.

Perry, J. A., & Zambo, D. (2019, April 8). Developing educational leaders with the capacity to connect research and practice [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, CA.

Quality Matters & Eduventures Research (2020). The changing landscape of online education (CHLOE) 4: Navigating the mainstream. https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/research-docs-pdfs/CHLOE-4-Report-2020-Navigating-the-Mainstream.pdf

Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2018). The development and validation of the scholar–practitioner research development scale for students enrolled in professional doctoral programs. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 10(4). 478–492.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-01-2018-0011

Rolfe, G., & Davies, R. (2009). Second generation professional doctorates in nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(9), 1265–1273.

Servage, L. (2009). Alternative and professional doctoral programs: What is driving the demand? Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 765–779.

Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25–32.

Slayton, J., & Samkian, A. (2017). Scaffolding learning for practitioner-scholars: The philosophy and design of a qualitative research methods course. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 12(1), 51–71.

Suss, D. D. (2015). T4 MAP™: A scholar-practitioner model for performance improvement. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 27(4), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21179

Toma, J. D. (2002, November 22). Legitimacy, differentiation, and the promise of the EdD in higher education [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA.

Townsend, B. (2002, November 22). Rethinking the EdD or what’s in a name [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA.

Downloads

Published

2023-09-05

How to Cite

Gillham, J., & Schilling, N. V. (2023). Assessing Online Doctoral Student Research Competencies . Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 8(4), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2023.296

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 4 (2023): Themed - Reimagining Research Methods Coursework for the Preparation of Scholar-Practitioners (II)

Section

Themed-Reimagining Research Methods Coursework for the Preparation of Scholar-Practitioners

License

Copyright (c) 2023 John C. Gillham, Nicole V. Schilling

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.